The memory tesseract: Mathematical equivalence between composite and separate storage memory models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational memory models can explain the behaviour of human memory in diverse experimental paradigms. But research has produced a profusion of competing models, and, as different models focus on different phenomena, there is no best model. However, by examining commonalities among models, we can move towards theoretical unification. Computational memory models can be grouped into composite and separate storage models. We prove that MINERVA 2, a separate storage model of long-term memory, is mathematically equivalent to composite storage memory implemented as a fourth order tensor, and approximately equivalent to a fourth-order tensor compressed into a holographic vector. Building of these demonstrations, we show that MINERVA 2 and related separate storage models can be implemented in neurons. Our work clarifies the relationship between composite and separate storage models of memory, and thereby moves memory models a step closer to theoretical unification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it